Literature DB >> 32706420

Qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody avidity by lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM antibody assay.

Arantxa Valdivia1, Ignacio Torres1, Dixie Huntley1, María J Alcaraz1, Eliseo Albert1, Javier Colomina1, Josep Ferrer1, Arturo Carratalá2, David Navarro1,3.   

Abstract

Knowledge of the precise timing of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be of clinical and epidemiological relevance. The presence of low-avidity IgGs has conventionally been considered an indicator of recent infection. Here, we carried out qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody avidity using an urea (6M) dissociation test performed on a lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM device. We included a total of 76 serum specimens collected from 57 COVID-19 patients, of which 39 tested positive for both IgG and IgM and 37 only for IgG. Sera losing IgG reactivity after urea treatment (n = 28) were drawn significantly earlier (P = .04) after onset of symptoms than those which preserved it (n = 48). This assay may be helpful to estimate the time of acquisition of infection in patients with mild to severe COVID-19.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Covid-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibodies; avidity; urea dissociation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32706420      PMCID: PMC7405485          DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Virol        ISSN: 0146-6615            Impact factor:   20.693


INTRODUCTION

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) RNA in respiratory tract specimens by reverse‐transcription‐based polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) assays is the mainstay of corona virus 2019 (COVID‐19) diagnosis. However, a nonnegligible fraction of COVID‐19 patients test negative by RT‐PCR on initial or consecutive upper respiratory tract specimens, due to a number of nonmutually exclusive preanalytical or analytical factors. Although serology testing is mainly aimed at identifying individuals who have previously been exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2, it may also aid in diagnosis of ongoing COVID‐19, particularly in RT‐PCR negative patients who present at relatively late times after infection. Knowledge of the precise timing of infection may be of clinical and epidemiological relevance as viral shedding in the upper respiratory tract seems to continue up to 7 to 9 days after onset of symptoms in patients presenting with mild or moderate COVID‐19. , , Often enough, however, this cannot be accurately determined. Theoretically, virus‐specific serum IgM antibodies appear as soon as 7 days after infection and precede IgG seroconversion. Nevertheless, both synchronous seroconversion of IgG and IgM, and IgM seroconversion occurring later than IgG have been documented in the setting of COVID‐19, casting doubt on the reliability of SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM as a biomarker of acute infection. Affinity maturation is a process by which Th2‐cell‐activated B cells produce IgG antibodies with increased affinity for the antigen during the course of an immune response, and avidity is defined as the combined affinities of a mixture of polyclonal IgG molecules. Presence of low‐avidity IgGs has conventionally been considered an indicator of recent infection. Here, we carried out qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific antibody avidity using an urea dissociation test performed on a lateral flow immunochromatographic device‐lateral‐flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIC), and also discuss the potential clinical use of this approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients and sera

A total of 76 serum specimens collected from 57 COVID‐19 patients were included in this study. Median age of patients (32 males and 25 females) was 66 years (range, 27‐99 years). Forty‐seven patients were admitted to our center with pneumonia, while the remaining 10 patients presented with mild symptoms not requiring hospitalization. Comorbid conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or malignancies were identified in 47 patients. Clinical charts were reviewed to establish the time of onset of symptoms. The current study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital Clínico Universitario INCLIVA.

SARS‐CoV‐19 RT‐PCR assays

Commercially‐available SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR assays used in the current study were detailed in previous publications. ,

SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody avidity assay

Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody avidity was carried out using the LFIC ALLTEST 2019‐nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (Hangzhou ALLTEST Biotech Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), which uses a recombinant SARS‐CoV‐2 N protein as the antigen, following the manufacturer's recommendations. Cryopreserved specimens (−80°C) were thawed and used for the experiments. A volume of 10 µL of serum was diluted into 1 mL of sample buffer before depositing (100 µL) into the appropriate location of the cassette (Test T‐hole). When the fluid was about to reach the absorbent pad, 100 µL of sample buffer containing 6M urea was added to the T hole on the card. Serum specimens were run in parallel in the absence of urea treatment. Each reading was carried out independently by two observers after 20 minutes incubation. Appearance of either strong or weak sharp bands at the T line was recorded as a positive result. Absence of discernible lines was recorded as negative. Complete disappearance of reactive lines after urea treatment was interpreted as presence of low‐avidity antibodies, whereas their persistence was taken to indicate high‐avidity antibody presence.

Statistical analysis

The Mann‐Whitney U‐test was used for comparison of medians. P < .05 were deemed to be statistically significant. The statistical package SPSS, version 21.0 (SPSS Inc) was employed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Microbiological diagnosis of COVID‐19 was made by RT‐PCR in 44 patients, using RT‐PCRs on upper respiratory tract specimens (URT), and by LFIC assay in the remaining 13 patients. Out of the 76 sera, 39 tested positive for both IgG and IgM and 37 only for IgG. IgG+/IgM+ and IgG+/IgM− sera were obtained at a median of 20 days (range, 1‐48 days) and 24 days (range, 6‐59) after onset of symptoms, respectively (P = .13). In line with previous observations, our data highlighted the wide variability in the kinetics of IgM and IgG detection across COVID‐19 patients, which detracted from the reliability of IgM presence as a marker of acute infection. Following urea treatment, IgG reactivity disappeared in 28 sera and persisted in 48. Sera losing IgG reactivity were obtained significantly earlier (P = .04) after onset of symptoms than those preserving it (median, 14.5 days; range, 1‐45 days vs. median, 23 days; range, 5‐59 days, respectively), although a certain degree of overlap was seen. IgG binding to SARS‐CoV‐2 after urea dissociation according to the time of sera collection is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific IgG antibody avidity in sera from patients with COVID‐19 according to the time of specimen collection since the onset of symptoms

Time of serum collection, dNumber of sera tested/number of reactive sera after urea dissociation
1‐75/1
8‐1420/10
15‐2110/9
22‐2819/11
>2922/17

Abbreviations: COVID‐19, corona virus 2019; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific IgG antibody avidity in sera from patients with COVID‐19 according to the time of specimen collection since the onset of symptoms Abbreviations: COVID‐19, corona virus 2019; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Based upon the assumption that viable SARS‐CoV‐2 can be detected in URT specimens up to 9 days after symptoms onset, , , we grouped sera into two categories according to whether they were drawn either before (n = 10) or after day 9 (n = 66) since symptoms onset. Low‐avidity IgGs were detected in 8 out of the 10 former sera, and in 21 of the 66 latter sera (P = .01). Accordingly, the positive predictive value of the assay (IgG band) for correctly categorizing SARS‐CoV‐infection as an early one (<10 days after the onset of symptoms) was 80%, whereas the negative predictive value was 68%. Both predictive values were not adjusted to SARS‐CoV‐2 prevalence. At least two consecutive sera were available from 15 patients (Table 2). Acquisition of high‐avidity IgG antibodies in our system was clearly time‐dependent, usually occurring 3 weeks after onset of symptoms, although in a few patients it could be documented earlier (patients 4, 5, and 15). This observation is in keeping with the idea that the dynamics of antibody affinity maturation varies across individuals. , , ,
Table 2

Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific antibody avidity in serial serum samples from patients with COVID‐19

PatientTime since symptoms onset, dAntibody reactivity
IgGIgG after urea treatmentIgMIgM after urea treatment
127+
39++
222+
34+
325++
35++
420++
24++
510+++
16++++
623++
24++
730++
31++
51++
59++
811+
23++
930+++
40++
47++
107+++
15+++
1128+++
40+++
1221+
26++
38++
1321++++
48++++
146+
14+
1514+++
18++

Abbreviations: COVID‐19, corona virus 2019; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific antibody avidity in serial serum samples from patients with COVID‐19 Abbreviations: COVID‐19, corona virus 2019; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. IgM reactivity was lost in 17 out of 39 sera after urea dissociation treatment, whereas it remained in 22. The time elapsed since onset of symptoms did not differ across comparison groups (median 24 days; range 1‐45 days vs 14.5 days; range 2‐48 days, respectively; P = .14). Sera testing positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) IgM have been shown to yield false‐positive IgM reactivity in a SARS‐CoV‐2 LFIC assay, and it has been reported that RF interference could be eliminated in most sera after urea dissociation. This observation was validated in the current study: 5 out of 14 sera with leftover sample available that had lost IgM reactivity in the presence of urea tested positive for RF (median 18 IU/mL; range, 17 to 46 IU/mL; normal values <14 IU/mL). Collectively, these data suggest that SARS‐CoV‐2 N protein‐reactive IgM avidity may vary across COVID‐19 patients, regardless of the infection acquisition time; elucidation of whether this variability may impact on IgM functionality, and ultimately on COVID‐19 prognosis could be an interesting focus of future research. A total of nine sera from patients with seasonal human coronavirus infection occurring before the epidemic outbreak in our Health Department were also included in the current study. Coronaviruses were detected in URT specimens by a multiplex PCR assay (The NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel; Luminex Corp, Austin, TX). Seven patients had coronavirus 229E and two patients had dual infections caused by coronavirus 229E and HKU1 and coronavirus 229E and NL63. Sera had been obtained at a median of 3 weeks after diagnosis. Only one of the nine sera tested IgG‐positive, yet reactivity was lost following urea treatment. This suggested, but did not prove, that IgG antibodies targeting seasonal coronaviruses and cross‐reacting with SARS‐CoV‐2 may display low avidity. In summary, we adapted a commercially available LFIC IgG/IgM assay for qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody avidity that may be helpful to estimate the time of acquisition of infection in patients with mild to severe COVID‐19. Our approach should be validated using conventional quantitative enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay or chemiluminiscent immunoassay avidity assays and also in cohorts including both asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic individuals. Further studies are warranted to elucidate how the kinetics of IgG avidity maturation correlates with that of virus excretion in the URT, to determine the extent to which contagiousness of COVID‐19 patients can be inferred from absence of high‐avidity IgGs and determine whether avidity of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific IgGs impact on clinical outcomes.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

AV, IT, DH, MJA, EA, JC, and JF performed serological and RT‐PCR assays. AC carried out RF analyses. DN, AV, IT, and DH analyzed and interpreted the data. DN wrote the manuscript.
  12 in total

1.  Co-detection of respiratory pathogens in patients hospitalized with Coronavirus viral disease-2019 pneumonia.

Authors:  María Luisa Blasco; Javier Buesa; Javier Colomina; María José Forner; María José Galindo; Jorge Navarro; José Noceda; Josep Redón; Jaime Signes-Costa; David Navarro
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.327

2.  Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19.

Authors:  Quan-Xin Long; Bai-Zhong Liu; Hai-Jun Deng; Gui-Cheng Wu; Kun Deng; Yao-Kai Chen; Pu Liao; Jing-Fu Qiu; Yong Lin; Xue-Fei Cai; De-Qiang Wang; Yuan Hu; Ji-Hua Ren; Ni Tang; Yin-Yin Xu; Li-Hua Yu; Zhan Mo; Fang Gong; Xiao-Li Zhang; Wen-Guang Tian; Li Hu; Xian-Xiang Zhang; Jiang-Lin Xiang; Hong-Xin Du; Hua-Wen Liu; Chun-Hui Lang; Xiao-He Luo; Shao-Bo Wu; Xiao-Ping Cui; Zheng Zhou; Man-Man Zhu; Jing Wang; Cheng-Jun Xue; Xiao-Feng Li; Li Wang; Zhi-Jie Li; Kun Wang; Chang-Chun Niu; Qing-Jun Yang; Xiao-Jun Tang; Yong Zhang; Xia-Mao Liu; Jin-Jing Li; De-Chun Zhang; Fan Zhang; Ping Liu; Jun Yuan; Qin Li; Jie-Li Hu; Juan Chen; Ai-Long Huang
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 53.440

3.  Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples.

Authors:  Jared Bullard; Kerry Dust; Duane Funk; James E Strong; David Alexander; Lauren Garnett; Carl Boodman; Alexander Bello; Adam Hedley; Zachary Schiffman; Kaylie Doan; Nathalie Bastien; Yan Li; Paul G Van Caeseele; Guillaume Poliquin
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 4.  Immunoglobulin somatic hypermutation.

Authors:  Grace Teng; F Nina Papavasiliou
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 16.830

5.  Clinical utility of avidity assays.

Authors:  Stuart L Hazell
Journal:  Expert Opin Med Diagn       Date:  2007-12

6.  A Method To Prevent SARS-CoV-2 IgM False Positives in Gold Immunochromatography and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays.

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Qin Du; Bin Guo; Daiyong Mu; Xiaolan Lu; Qiang Ma; Yangliu Guo; Li Fang; Bing Zhang; Guoyuan Zhang; Xiaolan Guo
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study.

Authors:  Kelvin Kai-Wang To; Owen Tak-Yin Tsang; Wai-Shing Leung; Anthony Raymond Tam; Tak-Chiu Wu; David Christopher Lung; Cyril Chik-Yan Yip; Jian-Piao Cai; Jacky Man-Chun Chan; Thomas Shiu-Hong Chik; Daphne Pui-Ling Lau; Chris Yau-Chung Choi; Lin-Lei Chen; Wan-Mui Chan; Kwok-Hung Chan; Jonathan Daniel Ip; Anthony Chin-Ki Ng; Rosana Wing-Shan Poon; Cui-Ting Luo; Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng; Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan; Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung; Zhiwei Chen; Honglin Chen; Kwok-Yung Yuen
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 25.071

8.  False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.

Authors:  Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Diana Buitrago-Garcia; Daniel Simancas-Racines; Paula Zambrano-Achig; Rosa Del Campo; Agustin Ciapponi; Omar Sued; Laura Martinez-García; Anne W Rutjes; Nicola Low; Patrick M Bossuyt; Jose A Perez-Molina; Javier Zamora
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody avidity by lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM antibody assay.

Authors:  Arantxa Valdivia; Ignacio Torres; Dixie Huntley; María J Alcaraz; Eliseo Albert; Javier Colomina; Josep Ferrer; Arturo Carratalá; David Navarro
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 20.693

10.  Pooling of nasopharyngeal swab specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR.

Authors:  Ignacio Torres; Eliseo Albert; David Navarro
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 20.693

View more
  7 in total

1.  Characterizing Kinetics and Avidity of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Greek Patients.

Authors:  Stavroula Labropoulou; Niki Vassilaki; Raphaela S Milona; Evangelos Terpos; Marianna Politou; Vasiliki Pappa; Maria Pagoni; Elisavet Grouzi; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Andreas Mentis; Mary Emmanouil; Emmanouil Angelakis
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 5.818

2.  The challenge of avidity determination in SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Authors:  Georg Bauer; Friedhelm Struck; Patrick Schreiner; Eva Staschik; Erwin Soutschek; Manfred Motz
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 20.693

3.  Measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibody dissociation rate constant by chaotrope-free biolayer interferometry in serum of COVID-19 convalescent patients.

Authors:  Ying Hao; He S Yang; Mohsen Karbaschi; Sabrina E Racine-Brzostek; Pu Li; Robert Zuk; Yawei J Yang; P J Klasse; Yuanyuan Shi; Zhen Zhao
Journal:  Biosens Bioelectron       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 12.545

4.  Caveats in interpreting SARS-CoV-2 IgM+ /IgG- antibody profile in asymptomatic health care workers.

Authors:  Arantxa Valdivia; Ignacio Torres; Dixie Huntley; María Jesús Alcaraz; Eliseo Albert; Carlos Solano de la Asunción; Carmelo González; Josep Ferrer; David Navarro
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 20.693

5.  Qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody avidity by lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM antibody assay.

Authors:  Arantxa Valdivia; Ignacio Torres; Dixie Huntley; María J Alcaraz; Eliseo Albert; Javier Colomina; Josep Ferrer; Arturo Carratalá; David Navarro
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 20.693

6.  Diagnostic significance of SARS-CoV-2 IgM positive/IgG negative antibody profile in symptomatic patients with suspected COVID-19 testing negative by RT-PCR.

Authors:  Arantxa Valdivia; Ignacio Torres; Dixie Huntley; María Jesús Alcaraz; Eliseo Albert; Carmelo González; Javier Colomina; David Navarro
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 6.072

7.  SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Avidity Responses in COVID-19 Patients and Convalescent Plasma Donors.

Authors:  Sarah E Benner; Eshan U Patel; Oliver Laeyendecker; Andrew Pekosz; Kirsten Littlefield; Yolanda Eby; Reinaldo E Fernandez; Jernelle Miller; Charles S Kirby; Morgan Keruly; Ethan Klock; Owen R Baker; Haley A Schmidt; Ruchee Shrestha; Imani Burgess; Tania S Bonny; William Clarke; Patrizio Caturegli; David Sullivan; Shmuel Shoham; Thomas C Quinn; Evan M Bloch; Arturo Casadevall; Aaron A R Tobian; Andrew D Redd
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 5.226

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.